In what has become something of an annual event to encourage walkers and bikers to be more visible, TriMet is hosting a “Be Seen Be Safe” event tomorrow (11/11).

The event will take place in Pioneer Courthouse Square. Festivities get underway around 4:00. There will be giveaways of high-viz items like lights, reflectors, neon umbrellas, lights, and more. Also expect free basic bike repair and light installation thanks to A Better Cycle.

At 6:00 pm there will be a ride hosted by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance where everyone will light themselves up and roll across the Tilikum Crossing bridge to Base Camp Brewing (930 SE Oak Street) where prizes will be given out for best dressed and brightest bike. (Ride will end up at the Community Cycling Center’s big Bicycle Ball fundraiser party at Holocene.)

Advertisement

TriMet’s “Be Seen Be Safe” campaign started in 2010 and is always promoted most heavily at the beginning of November when it first begins to get dark for the evening commute.

Encouraging folks to wear to hear bright clothing and talking about people’s responsibility to be visible is a touchy subject. That being said, we’re glad to see that TriMet seems to have hired a fashion advisor.

They used to publish photos like this as part of promotional efforts around this campaign:

(Photo: TriMet)

Thankfully TriMet seems to have toned down their approach significantly. The image below is from their Be Seen website:

Be Seen Be Safe – Hosted by TriMet and the BTAWednesday, November 11th 4:00 pm at Pioneer Courthouse Square 6:00 pm ride leaves for Base Camp Brewing

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

167 Comments

LCNovember 10, 2015 at 2:54 pm

How about free dash mount warning signs for automobile operators reminding them to operate their vehicles in a safe and responsible manner in order to avoid killing their fellow citizens.

Drivers need to be especially alert to see pedestrians and cyclists. According to AAA, taking your eyes off the road—even for two seconds—doubles your risk of getting into a crash. Driving requires your full attention.

Complete all personal tasks before or after getting behind the wheel. It can wait. Have a passenger help you if you need directions. Otherwise, pull over somewhere safe before you check your phone. Keep your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel. It’s illegal in Oregon to use a wireless device while driving.

So we’re definitely telling peds and cyclists to go as far as they dare above and beyond the law: “[have legal lights], but don’t stop there—add more than what’s required”, and insisting that “proper gear” is fluorescent or reflective and requires an investment, and encouraging them to “get creative” by begriming (if I may borrow a term) their bikes with gaudy stickers, and lots of other helpful hints. These things are all mentioned (“investments” and all) in a way that makes them sound like fun and no big deal.

Then, we’re telling drivers to be “especially alert” to see peds and cyclists—because we know you’re not normally alert enough to see them. It makes the minimum standard of seeing things on the road sound like something above and beyond what’s normal—and like an additional burden. “Oh, come on! I’m already minimally alert; now I have to be ‘especially’ alert? Man!” Also, drivers, could you almost come into compliance with the minimum standards of “due care” by leaving your phone alone?

Here are some suggestions for drivers that seem on par with those given to pedestrians and bicyclists:

* Keep your windshield clean, and always replace wiper blades when they no longer clear rain away cleanly. It’s also a good idea to apply Rain-X or a similar product to help repel water and give you a clearer picture of the road ahead! Cracked windshield? Replace it!

* Windshields aren’t the only thing that need to stay clear—scrub those headlight lenses! Older, yellowed headlight lenses can reduce your ability to see pedestrians or bicyclists by x% at night! Invest in new headlight assemblies, or buy a cleaning product and scrub them back to their original condition.

* Drive slower. It’s no fun going the speed limit—we know—but it can really make the difference between life or death when you go to pass that other car stopped at a crosswalk and suddenly realize there’s a pedestrian there! Reaction and stopping distance is greatly increased by excessive speed, especially in the dark or on wet roads.

* Invest in proper tires. When you do have to make an emergency stop, those old, bald tires aren’t going to do you any favors.

* Let’s talk distraction. Distracted driving kills people every year. Engaging in disembodied conversation impairs your driving ability about as much as being legally intoxicated! It’s called “attention blindness”. Put that phone in the trunk before you leave, just to avoid the temptation to use it while you’re driving.

* We know kids or pets in the back seat can be a distraction and demand your attention. Take some advice from pilots: “first, drive the car”. That means before you get behind the wheel, decide that driving your car safely will be your top priority; worry about dropped toys and spilled Cheerios after you are stopped.

* “Take two to look”. We know that when you’re anxiously awaiting your turn or a gap in traffic, it can give you tunnel vision. When you think you have your chance to gun it, take two seconds to make sure there is not a bicyclist approaching in a bike lane or far-right road position, and there are no pedestrians about to dash across the street in the same gap. Two seconds. You won’t die, and maybe somebody else won’t either.

* We know it’s nobody’s business where you’re going, but use those turn signals! If you expect pedestrians and bicyclists to get out of your way, they have to know which way you’re going!

This list could go on, so why are there no “above and beyond” suggestions for drivers in this campaign?

I will happily spend thousands of dollars on “high-vis gear” to look like a 1980s hipster reject… if… Trimet will give the [Equivalent] treatment to all of their trains and buses! That (physical and monetary) equivalent would be wrapping each bus in 10 foot thick bubble wrap, blaring lights and sirens at all times, Drivers would have a “personal spotter” at the front and rear of each bus and [here is the hard part] they will need to smile and be courteous at all times!

Let’s see motor vehicles are required by law to have headlights, taillights, brakelights and side markers, as well as mirrors, and an audible warning device. Not to mention laws pertaining to window tinting.

All those Trimet vehicles have all these features.

Would you agree that bicycles should also have many of these safety features come as part of a bike purchase?

From my time as a seasonal employee, one driver told me that even the slightest harm caused can become grounds for dismissal. This ranges from hitting a person, backing into a pole of some kind, or breaking part of a mirror on a low tree branch.

Surprising that following the speed limit doesn’t seem to be a requirement for police officers, nor do they do much to set a good example. I saw a Multnomah Co Sheriff yesterday cross a solid white line to change lanes yesterday, without signaling.

I think that a large missing hole in US auto safety regulations is the lack of requirement for a fender mounted turn indicator such as you see on cars for the European market. http://bit.ly/1M78rRJ Most turn signals for vehicles in the US can only be seen from the front or behind.

Well lets see, all of those requirements are to prevent Drivers from killing each other and other road users. So are you saying bicycles must be required to to have all these safety features so not to kill other cyclists and other road users?

Those requirements are to let road users see one another and prevent collisions. I think what he’s saying is that if bicycles had those safety features, they would be involved in fewer collisions. But, of course, you understood that perfectly well.

Planning on going to the Community Cycling Center’s Bicycle Ball? Fear not! That’s where the ride is headed after BaseCamp. So: join us in Pioneer Square, ride across the Tillikum, get some free snacks (and maybe win a prize) at BaseCamp, and then head to Holocene for a big ol’ party to support the CCC!

How about Tri Met reminding drivers to pay attention to what they’re doing, lock their cell phones in the car trunk before starting the engine, and learn how to read a two-digit number, you know, like on a speed limit sign.

The old photo of the guy wearing the yellow pants, jacket, hoody, gloves and triangle sign, at least demonstrated somewhat, that gear’s potential for aiding visibility of vulnerable road users to other road users, particularly those that drive.

With the new ‘fashion shot’, it’s very difficult to even notice what the young woman model is wearing that’s supposed to aid visibility (I think it’s the wrist bands and maybe the shoes…the Nike logo, of course.). Too bad the woman looks so unhappy.

In the top photo from 2010, the gloves the woman is wearing look like something that would be very helpful towards aiding visibility. She poses well too.

(just fyi) in the newer photo of the unhappy woman, the entire jacket is hi vis – every gray stripe is reflective. I think it’s a great demonstration of how modern hi vis gear can look aesthetically pleasing and still be high visible.

Well, I have those gloves and they have just as much reflective visibility as a professional road work reflective vest.

For high visibility hand signals of turns the only thing better would be an actively lit LED glove set. These have been “invented” every couple of years only to fade in to un-marketable obscurity only to be “invented new” later. Rinse and repeat.

This borders on victim blaming. People have the clear right of way in crosswalks, marked or unmarked, no matter what they’re wearing. TriMet’s drivers regularly blow through crosswalks without yielding to people crossing, and they’ve even installed crosswalks with stop signs and other devices aimed at stopping people from walking. Awful.

“…People have the clear right of way in crosswalks, marked or unmarked, no matter what they’re wearing. …” WD

Right of Way, is not what’s at dispute.

What’s disputed is the idea that use of visibility gear is a reasonable expectation of people using the road as vulnerable road users, for the purpose of enhancing their visibility to people using the road with vehicles.

In many situations, the stuff helps. Probably isn’t needed on well lit Downtown streets, but going off into low lit neighborhood streets, or out of the city, county streets that have little or no street lighting, it can help a lot.

I don’t think that wearing hi-viz is a reasonable expectation for people walking legally on our roads. Motorists have a legal obligation to drive at a speed that lets them see pedestrians no matter what they’re wearing. These constant efforts to lower the bar for motorists while raising the bar for everyone else moves us all in the wrong direction.

People still have the right of way when using a crosswalk on a MUP. I’ve talked with engineers & lawyers and none can point me to anything saying a stop sign is the appropriate treatment for a crosswalk. It contradicts Oregon’s laws.

But let’s ignore that one for a sec. TriMet has also installed crosswalks that audibly warn people walking that “vehicles may not stop”, which is essentially the crosswalk admitting that it’s poorly built and won’t work.

It’s embarrassing for a city calls itself “friendly” to bicycling and walking to treat people this way.

Do these “vehicles may not stop” crosswalks happen to cross rail, where the vehicles generally have longer-than-expected stopping distances? Also note that the rules for who has right-of-way at crosswalks are generally different for rail vehicles than for vehicles on the street.

I am unfamiliar with those crossings. Do you interpret the statement as a warning (as in drivers might not fulfill their obligation to stop, so be careful), or as an absolution (drivers don’t need to stop here, so be careful)? And are they Trimet installations?

Not trimet, but most of the HAWK beacons I’ve used give that audible warning. It’s not specific to Portland or Oregon. When I press the button the lights go off right away. They’re to alert drivers that I’m crossing. That warning light doesn’t relieve me of the legal responsibility not to leave a place of safety (sidewalk) when a vehicle (including a bicycle) is so close so as to be impractical to stop. An audible warning to let me know as much doesn’t seem harmful.

In the meantime, I’ll ask you what I asked Matt: Do you interpret the statement as a warning (as in drivers might not fulfill their obligation to stop, so be careful), or as an absolution (drivers don’t need to stop here, so be careful)?

On NE 33rd in Portland, there is a ped bike activated blinky light at NE Klicitat. Voice and sign warn that cars “may not stop”. It says this because its not a red traffic light for the cars, its an advisory blinky light. This allows cars to drive through once the ped or bike passes without waiting for the whole blinky cycle to finish. Makes perfect sense to me.

I was just looking at bike wheel lights today. Something for my middle schooler’s bike to be super visible but it has to be theft proof so he can leave it on and it won’t walk away – or get left in another bag like all the clip on lights. The ones I’ve seen so far for wheels look easily removable. Advice?

Evidence that bicycle lighting reduces risk in urban areas is also suspect:

The German Cyclists’ Federation ADFC has studied the subject of bicycle accidents at dusk and in the dark in Europe… …This suggests that the different rules have only a marginal impact on the safety of bicycle traffic in the dark. Only a small number of nighttime accidents can be clearly attributed to the lack of lights: Other major risk factors are driving or riding under the influence of alcohol, higher driving speeds on empty roads at night and impaired night vision especially in older drivers.

A Dutch study means NOTHING–how is any city in the Netherlands similar to riding in a US suburban setting? Please, enough of these “delusions of Amsterdam,” okay? We live where 1.Drivers have far too many rights, 2.Streets are designed for high speed and maximum auto traffic flow 3.Like it or not, in our country and culture we cyclists are social deviates until further notice. You need real lights on a bike–rudely bright so we’re visible to others, and powerful enough to show you the stick that would throw you off the bike and get your arm broken if you hit it. Helmet’s are not a bad idea; despite the nebulous image “problems” some folks think they create I like having my head covered in case I come off. And, better visible clothing than less visible. Until they prove that Pearl Izumi causes cancer I’m wearing the bright stuff.

Its fascinating that many commenters are of the mind that all cars are out to get them and want to run them over (seriously?). I think everyone needs to get behind the wheel of a car on a rainy night with the windshield wipers going full blast and the other car headlights blinding you and reflecting on the rain and try to see someone on the side of the lane who is not well lit. You are asking for Superman quality vision if you think they can see you from their wet steamy windshield or side window.

“I think everyone needs to get behind the wheel of a car on a rainy night with the windshield wipers going full blast and the other car headlights blinding you and reflecting on the rain and try to see someone on the side of the lane”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It is not my problem that you as a member of the car-bound have chosen or find yourself in such a difficult situation. I recognize that what you describe is stressful and probably not a very good idea all around, but why on earth would it be up to me (who is on a bike in those same conditions, remember, not endangering anyone, least of all you in your warm if claustrophobic car) to make up for the limitations of your chosen conveyance?!

You are also a member of a car-bound society, and, whether you like it or not, as a VRU, you will find yourself in an even more difficult situation. How you choose to respond could be the difference between life and death.

There’s a lot in my life I “should” not have to deal with. But I do have to deal with it. So I deal with it.

There is a curious tendency in these discussions to drift from the *policy* realm how should a public entity prioritize its safety campaign? what should the messaging emphasize and who should be addressed? to the *personal* realm what should I take into consideration as a member of traffic? what precautions should I take? etc.

I have no disagreement with your statements about the personal realm that you keep drifting into, but this discussion came about (I thought) because we were responding to Trimet’s focus in its safety/outreach campaign. Can we try to keep these two realms apart, clarify which we are speaking to?

Jeff Owen from Trimet (who just commented) I think hit a lot of great notes that perhaps answer some of your question.

I think the gist of this whole thing (what some of us are objecting to about this campaign) is that by focusing attention on VRU, on things they can do, without at least commensurate messaging directed at other, less VRU, the unfortunate implication is that to be safe it is up to the VRUs, when we know that is not the case.

Maybe we could recall that just about everyone (PBOT, ODOT, Trimet, Bike Gallery) find themselves reflexively regurgitating these admonitions directed at VRUs without commensurate attention to those not out and about under their own power. It gets tiresome.

My European friends who commute by bicycle all wear high-visibility clothes. Drivers also all carry special high-visibility vests in case they need to pull over on the edge of the road. Even their trucks have lots of reflective tape.

If you want to follow the European traffic model, you’d better invest in some reflective gear.

The research I cited (and additional research spanning back many decades) support use of reflectors and reflective features. Reflective features on pedals, ankles, and legs appear to be particularly effective.

That does not match my experiences riding with friends in Dutch cities. Remember, most of their cycling is separated from cars, the bike routes have street lighting, and the cops don’t seem to bother people as long as they’re just riding peacefully along. I’ve heard they give tickets to people riding in car streets without lights, but I’ve never seen it (and I’ve seen plenty of people riding in streets, some with very sketchy lights).

“Overall, drivers responded to the presence of the test bicyclist on 70% of the laps, ranging from only 27% (black clothing, no lights, older drivers) to 100% (vest, ankle & knee for all light conditions, younger drivers). When the data were collapsed across the clothing conditions, the older drivers responded to only 55% of the bicyclists compared to 86% for the younger drivers, Χ2(1) = 6.9, p < .009.

Importantly, the bicyclists’ clothing strongly affected the drivers’ ability to recognize their presence. Collapsed across driver age, drivers responded on 50% of the laps in the black condition, on 67% of the laps in the vest condition, and on 94% of the laps in the vest plus ankles and knees condition, Χ2(2) = 17.76, p < .001; all pairwise differences were significant. Figure 1 presents these data as a function of driver age. In the vest, ankle & knee condition, the vast majority of participants (both older and younger) were able to recognise the cyclists, whereas in the other conditions the older adults showed decreased ability to recognise the presence of a cyclist. There was no significant effect of lights in terms of the proportion of bicyclists seen. Overall, participants recognised 75% of bicyclists in the no-light condition, and 68% in each of the static and flashing conditions, Χ2(2) = 2.01, p = .367.

Which confirms the reasons to use lights, high viz, and reflectives. They help drivers see you. See above. Cyclist in black clothing, no bike lights: drivers saw the cyclist only 27% of the time. Cyclist wearing yellow vest with reflectives on vest and legs, bike with light: drivers saw the cyclist 94% of the time.

Of course, high viz clothing doesn't help much at night, reflective don't help much in the day, and lights vary a lot in their brightness and blink pattern if any. So you probably want some combination of these aids.

It's a free country. If someone wants to ride like a cat burglar, that's their choice. But note above. Older driver, cyclist dressed in black with no lights and no reflectives: the driver seldom saw the cyclist, and when s/he did see the cyclist, it wasn't until 5 meters (15 feet) distance. This was a stationary cyclist, by the way (pedaling on a trainer), and the driver was doing laps of a test track with not many distractions.

Throw in a quickly moving cyclist, some rain streaming down the windshield, other traffic, maybe a little fogging or glare, and the ninja cyclist is basically assuming all the responsibility of avoiding cars, because he's made himself very, very hard for drivers to see.

One more thought on the topic of lights. The study cited above used "blinky" LED lights, exact type not described. But today we can buy very bright lights, with multiple high power LEDs, 300-500 lumens, for $40-60. I suspect those would be much more noticeable to drivers than the blinkys used in the study. We can also mount them on our helmets, and put the beam right on the windshield of a car that is threatening to cut us off or turn in front of us. I know, from lots of personal experience, that is extremely noticeable to drivers.

I like high viz in the daytime, but admittedly don’t always wear it. My everyday commuter rain jacket is yellow, but when I’m not wearing it, I don’t put on a safety vest or otherwise impersonate a traffic cone . . .

“The German Cyclists’ Federation ADFC has studied the subject of bicycle accidents at dusk and in the dark in Europe… …This suggests that the different rules have only a marginal impact on the safety of bicycle traffic in the dark. Only a small number of nighttime accidents can be clearly attributed to the lack of lights: Other major risk factors are driving or riding under the influence of alcohol, higher driving speeds on empty roads at night and impaired night vision especially in older drivers.”

What the study doesn’t discuss is how many injuries were avoided through the use of bike lights. That’s the crucial question, and the study doesn’t address it.

One possible reason that Trimet is not doing anything about people hitting bikes with their cars is that they have no role in that. You might as well complain that the Water Bureau is not taking a leadership role in bike safety.

Do you really think Trimet isn’t doing everything they can internally to train their drivers about avoiding pedestrians and cyclists? Instead, you think they do “absolutely nothing”? Do you really believe that?

I’m sure they train their drivers, but “wear reflective clothing or get hit by one of our bus drivers” is a terrible message and makes it very easy to blame the victim if they were not wearing reflectives.

Then why have the token suggestions for “drivers” at the bottom of the campaign page? It seems they are addressing non-Tri-met drivers if one of the suggestions is to “have a passenger help you if you need directions”, and there is an incorrect reminder that “it’s illegal in Oregon to use a wireless device while driving”: a) it’s not illegal if you do it “hands-free”, and b) I thought drivers were prohibited from using phones by Tri-met policy, which isn’t mentioned here.

This just doesn’t seem like a campaign strictly to keep peds and cyclists from getting run over by buses. It’s an attempt to keep them from getting run over in general, by taking all the responsibility to go above and beyond legal requirements upon themselves, because we know drivers won’t, so we won’t even attempt to give them above-and-beyond suggestions on how to be even safer than the law requires. As far as drivers are concerned, the final few suggestions are hints on how to almost meet the legal minimum of safe driving behavior.

Maybe they don’t want drivers to collide with their vehicles while they are reading a map? Trimet is not responsible for mediating car-bicycle interaction, so I’m not sure what the point is of complaining about the way they are or are not doing that. This is a total non-issue.

Lots of negative comments. I think it’s a great idea. The sun sets before 5 pm now and not all streets have street lights. In the grand scheme of things, people really don’t want to hit other people, whether it be cars, cyclists, or joggers.

I do. Normal clothes, but a reflect running vest and usually a flashlight. I am always looking for peds, etc when driving and I always see those with reflective items/flashlights much better than those without. Those without you can barely see, especially when there are no street lights.

I’ve mentioned in past, that Fairmount Blvd is a place where people walking commonly carry lights and wear at least some hi-vis gear. For those of you reading that aren’t familiar with Fairmount, it’s a three mile loop road up high on the hills west of Portland.

From early morning and into the evening, many people use the quiet residential road for walking, running, biking, and a few other odd wheeled sports. Has street lights, but nothing like Downtown Portland. Use of the hi-vis gear there is very helpful.

I guess the bottom line for me is, I can’t even imagine not wanting to do what I can to see and be seen on my bike at night in the dark where drivers of cars are distracted with cups of coffee or cell phones or wiping the condensation off the windows – all things that realistically, the cops don’t give a shit about, even though they really ought to.

There’s also other obstacles, rain, wet leaves, manhole covers, potholes, etc etc that I like to be able to avoid, hence, my NightSun.

(The amount of snark on Bike Portland seems to have increased since we started buying shares in the site)

It looks cool though, and is more than sufficiently functional…works great… if you’re not confined to riding with a bunch of people commuting. You bet, I’ve got one and it’s one of the best, simplest and affordable accessories I’ve ever had. No problem since I don’t have to ride the Hawthorne or Williams Ave commute hour.

free stuff is great. but you could be hi viz head to toe and have a 360 degree lighting system, if a driver is staring at their phone, there is nothing you can do to “be seen” in that instance. Also the obligation implicit in the verb “to see” is 100% on the “see-er”. if someone is looking only for cars there are plenty of brightly lit objects about that dont garner any energy from a driver because they are categorized in the mind of the driver as “that cant hurt me” where as cars are in the “that can hurt me” category and thus garner much more respect from a driver. I feel like there are so many studies, videos etc. out there that display humans short comings when it comes to the paying attention game. cyclists arent dangerous to cars no matter what they look like, and therefore “i didnt see him!”

some highlights from the abstract of the study posted by Soren contradict my previous claims:

“The use of reflective markings on a pedestrian’s major joints to facilitate theperception of biological motion has been shown to greatly enhance pedestrian conspicuity at night, but few corresponding data exist for bicyclists.”

“Bicyclist clothing significantly affected conspicuity; drivers responded to bicyclists wearing the vest plus ankle and knee reflectors at significantly longer distances than when the bicyclist wore the vest alone or black clothing without a vest”

“The presence of a bicycle light, whether static or flashing, did not enhance the conspicuity of the bicyclist; this may result in bicyclists who use a bicycle light being overconfident of their own conspicuity at night. The implications of our findings are that ankleand knee markings are a simple and very effective approach for enhancing bicyclist conspicuity at night.”

in other words doesnt say anything about hi-viz, lights arent so great, but reflectors are the best, especially if they convey bilogical motion. this makes perfect sense because the reflector essentially uses the power of the headlights directed back at them. far brighter than any bike light.

Also really interesting from the study, age was a large determiner in cyclist visibility ie. older drivers performed significantly worse across all measures, as well a cyclist with reflective vest, knees, and ankles was actually LESS visible to motorists presumably because of the glare. in other words if Trimet really wanted to make a difference they should start handing out reflective buttons or straps that we can put on our shoes and ankles.

Considering that the last few times that I’ve stopped my automobile for pedestrians crossing at unmarked intersections it was Trimet drivers that honked and yelled at me, I think they need to take a hard look at their own policies and driver training before they start telling me what to do.

I applied for a bike safety grant and started “Get Lit” a free bike lights program. The CCC took it over and ran it for several years too. The CCC survey while giving out lights indicated money was the main reason why people didn’t have lights “Get Lit” has been dormant for awhile, but the need is still there. I contacted both Cycle Oregon (for a grant) and the BTA (to give out lights) trying to resurrect “Get Lit”. I got no response from either organization. I was a little shocked because Allison Graves headed CCC and knew “Get Lit” filled an important need for bike safety. I hope after the event that the BTA & Cycle Oregon sees the need is year round, not just one night. On another note: If the person driving the car, says “I could see you better if you wore brighter clothes”. WTF are you complaining about? They want to work with you. Just because they haven’t’ adopted your bicycle lifestyle doesn’t mean they don’t care for you, they obviously do. Get over it and go get a yellow rain jacket and live to tell.

“WTF are you complaining about? They want to work with you. Just because they haven’t’ adopted your bicycle lifestyle doesn’t mean they don’t care for you, they obviously do. Get over it and go get a yellow rain jacket and live to tell.”

Hm. I wouldn’t be so quick to channel their thinking, Jeff.

Could be they are freaked out by the prospect of being ‘surprised’ by someone on a bike… because they weren’t paying enough attention to see him sooner. Notice that most times people complain about unlit, unreflectorized pedestrians or cyclists being invisible, they are telling you that they saw them… just not with as much advanced warning as their speed suggested to them they deserved.

weak. If you read the comments people are posting here I think you might appreciate that we’re not, by and large, talking about whether people should wear clothing that helps them stand out at night, but whether a public entity should continue, year after year, to focus their advertising attention on the vulnerable rather than on the inattentive machine-bound traffic participants.

You know, I was considering investing in new bike lights and reflective, high-visibility bike clothes now that my evening commutes are dark and rainy, but I’m sure glad I read the comments here first! It sure is a relief to be reminded that literally everybody but me is responsible for my own safety–how dare TriMet or anyone else suggest that I should endure a slight inconvenience just to make it easier for drivers to see me in low-visibility conditions!

Even though you’re intentionally avoiding any of the points I made in my comment, I’ll take your bait, too. What exactly would you have TriMet do to encourage drivers to watch out for cyclists? Sure, they could maybe do with an ad campaign on the side of their buses reminding drivers to be mindful–if that’s what you want, let’s ask for that.

All I’m saying is that, given that riding around traffic has inherent risks, especially when it’s dark and/or rainy and even the best-intentioned drivers can struggle to be fully aware of all of their surroundings, what’s the harm in encouraging cyclists to take measures to protect themselves and make it easier for drivers to see them? Why do we have to resort to cries of “victim-blaming” whenever it’s suggested that cyclists take measures beyond what’s legally required for our own safety?

I’ve commented on this before but I have to say it is stunning to me that bicycle riders response to the notion that they should ride with high visibility is to deflect the responsibility onto cars, buses, Max, UPS, anybody but them. Being a ‘legal eagle’ when you ride and thinking it offers some sort of magic protection doesn’t get you far. Being right about who is at fault in a bicycle/auto accident is just about meaningless after the fact. Do you know what the question is in a court of law to you or your heirs at the end of a court proceeding? It’s: ‘How much do you want?’ After you’ve been hit there is rarely a remedy that will make you whole again. Of what value is it to be “right” when you’ve been injured by an errant driver when you’ve been too stupid/negligent to have worn a helmet? Start every ride with the decision to be as visible as possible, lights, reflective vest. Make a commitment with each ride to be as conservative as possible with all your moves.

Yesterday I was near a car that had one of these new, fancy turn signals that don’t just flash, but rather a series of lights sequentially flash to sort of ‘point” in the direction of the turn. All the sudden I realized I was staring at that light and not paying attention to everything else important going on around me. Just for a second, but luckily the person in front of me didn’t rake in that second. But cool, his turn signal was really well seen. Sorry for all the suckers with regular old turn signals and brake lights. Go out and upgrade if you want me to see you.

Charles Ross: “it is stunning to me that bicycle riders response to the notion that they should ride with high visibility is to deflect the responsibility onto cars, buses, Max, UPS, anybody but them.”

I hope you can differentiate between (I won’t wear high-viz, and I don’t think it should be Trimet’s # 1 priority to focus everyone’s attention on the need for *me-who bikes* to wear high-viz.

I believe in being conspicuous. But I deeply resent the tone and focus of these messages which direct attention *away from* what really causes problems which are speed and inattention by those in cars.

I briefly stopped by the event today, and it was super low key; just a couple of Trimet employees giving away some pretty cheesy swag, and some vendors selling stuff like bags and smoothies. I think if you had likewise stopped by, you’d have found no “tone” at all, besides the overly cheerful woman handing out bicycle-incompatible blinkies to anyone who walked by.

I don’t think they had anything bike-specific at all; I wanted an umbrella, but lost the lottery and got a reflective sash that I am trying to think of some creative use for. They were also giving out bus tickets, some kind of weird UFO headgear, and glow sticks in various forms, any of which would have been better than the sash.

“I think if you had likewise stopped by, you’d have found no ‘tone’ at all, besides the overly cheerful woman handing out bicycle-incompatible blinkies to anyone who walked by.”

I don’t think I’d be looking for ‘tone’ among hoi polloi. My point was that the messaging, the thrust of the campaign (quite apart from any cheerfulness of the vendor woman) is misguided and undermines our chances for shifting the debate in a direction that could actually make a difference in the long run. people driving need to do what the law already stipulates; we don’t need to be going above and beyond the law to BE SEEN.

I’m not that interested in winning the battle only to lose the war. I think Trimet’s campaign suffers from precisely this kind of myopia.

There is a lot trimet should be doing to make the streets safer. Near the top of that list would have them regularly review the performance of their bus drivers, and conduct thorough investigations into every crash one of their drivers is involved in. Even if a bus driver hits a pedestrian or cyclist and that VRU was entirely responsible for the crash they should endeavor to find out what additional defensive driving training they could provide their drivers to hopefully prevent such a crash from occurring again. Assume for the moment they do this. How often would you hear about it?

>I hope you can differentiate between (I won’t wear high-viz, and I don’t think it should be Trimet’s # 1 priority to focus everyone’s attention on the need for *me-who bikes* to wear high-viz.

Is getting cyclists to go out of their way to be more visible trimet’s #1 priority? What, do they run one winter safety event a year where they happen to give away some bike swag, but cyclist visibility isn’t the only and maybe not even the main reason for it? How much do they do to make the streets safer that you never hear about? How do the resources that go into this event compare to the total amount of time, money, and energy they spend working towards a safer transit system?

I have two reflective ankle bands. I knew such things existed for years. But never got around to getting one. Would sometimes use a rubber band to save my pants. Then a few years back I happened to ride by a NYCDOT night safety giveaway something or other. They let me have three ankle bands. I gave one away to a fellow cyclist who asked for one because he didn’t want to spend the money to buy one, didn’t know how to make one himself, but thought it would make him more visible. The other two I have and gladly use at least one when I ride in the winter instead of rubber bands. Might you find this sort of event less bothersome if you think of it as something for people who bike but aren’t you and don’t have your equipment, ‘cycling social network’, or lifetime of cycling knowledge?

I guess that would be up to Trimet. My ire has to do with the fact that the Be Seen campaign is something I hear about every year, and encounter via billboards and signs on buses.

“How much do they do to make the streets safer that you never hear about? How do the resources that go into this event compare to the total amount of time, money, and energy they spend working towards a safer transit system?”

I have no idea. Again, regardless of how big or small a priority this campaign is for them, why make it lopsided like this? To me it just doesn’t compute. As El Biciclero said somewhere over in the Jolene discussion:“Be seen” in itself is an asinine, nonsense command that typifies the attitude that I am against, which is that if someone didn’t see me, it’s my own fault for not being “visible” enough. The victim blaming comes into the picture after the fact, when rather than say, “that driver should have had their eyes open”, we say, “that bicyclist should have been wearing brighter colors and using a daytime light”, and deem that he “could not ‘objectively’ be seen”. Meanwhile, we don’t provide any helpful hints to drivers to watch for small things, look before you turn, take note of anything that temporarily blocks other lights by passing in front of them, pay extra attention to shadowed areas, or otherwise do anything but try to notice people dressed as traffic cones.http://bikeportland.org/2015/11/09/why-jolene-friedow-only-got-a-traffic-ticket-in-the-collision-that-killed-mark-angeles-167881#comment-6587433

Almost certainly this is done on advice from the legal dept as a proactive defence against that lawsuit that is surely coming from some person on a bike that has been injured through interaction with TriMet assets. “Ya can’t say we didn’t warn ya!”. Also it might influence any potential jurors, even subconsciously, in TriMet’s favor.

I would be shocked if Trimet does not regularly review driver performance, and treat crashes as extremely serious events. A crash represents a total failure of their system. I would not expect to hear about how these issues are dealt with because with union rules being what they are, disciplinary actions taken are probably kept confidential.

There was little if any bike swag on offer tonight. There were a few cyclists mingling around (probably hoping they weren’t going to be saddled with a sash), but the event was clearly not targeting us.

The modern urban landscape is built and maintained for cars, not for bicycles. Either I give up and start driving everywhere, or I take the necessary precautions and keep pedaling my bicycle, knowing that the topical and political landscape will never fully take me seriously. I don’t care. I’ll ride my bike. ..::thumbs nose at the dominant paradigm::..

About 6pm tonight crossing Vancouver on a side street south of Killingsworth. I’m in my car, four bright sets of lights pass, so the coast looks clear, I start to go, then catch sight of the guy on the bike, dressed in dark clothes, no light. Oh boy, get a head light for that bike!

I went and as stated by others, it was fairly low key and was fun. I brought my “holiday” bike (ELwire on the frame, 2 Brightz wheel lights per wheel) because it was fun. The bike was a big hit with those out on Halloween, especially the kids.

My normal lighting, though: Light & Motion 360+ helmet, a Dinotte 300r taillight, and a Dinotte XML-3 headlight. I want others to see me from as far away as possible.

I also think there needs to be more PSAs, say during all those news hours and such, promoting those driving to be ever more watchful for other people out there – walking, riding, running, skating, etc.

My normal lighting currently is: a Cygolite 850 and a Blackburn Central 20 tail light on my helmet a Cygolite 800 and a Planet Bike Beamer 5 for the handlebars a PDW Aether Demon and PDW Danger Zone for the tail lights a set of BrightZ Wheel lights (blue) for the front and rear wheels (one set each)

There’s also some Duck brand reflective tape from Walmart (the red) which is a lot cheaper, but you get a lot less of it (1.5″ x 30″ for $3.47 for a roll)

I no longer recommend the reflective materials that have a triangular or hexagonal pattern embossed into them (e.g. conspicuity tape) for wrapping around frames. It’s fine for flat surfaces (bike buckets, etc.), but will peel off when applied to round surfaces, unless held down by a clear film (tape doesn’t work… I know… I tried).

I feel it’s important to have a standard AA or AAA battery powered backup for each of the “on bike” lights. That way if you forget to charge your USB light (or it breaks for some reason) you have a system that will keep you legal, and hopefully safe. Should the backup’s batteries fail, you can always replace them at any convenience shop.

Hey, everyone. Our intention with the Be Seen Be Safe campaign is to celebrate the idea that all road users need to look out for each other. So when we looked at reinvigorating the campaign this year we embraced a more positive approach and purposefully tried to avoid victim-blaming.

This year’s ads showing people who walk and bike don’t imply that you’ll get run over unless you dress like a traffic cone. We’re encouraging people to dress bright and/or use a light, but we’re very intentionally not saying “…or else.”

We recognize that people who bike, walk, and roll — many of whom are TriMet riders — are vulnerable road users (and most of us count ourselves among them). That’s why we tried to show that if you want to take the precaution of being seen when you’re out and it’s dark, you can wear normal looking clothes with reflective accents — they don’t have to look crazy, they don’t have to be inconvenient and they don’t have to all be blaze orange. (Not that there’s anything wrong with blaze orange.)

And it’s worth noting that we do have ads on buses targeted at drivers, reminding them that they need to pay attention behind the wheel. We know very well that distracted driving is a huge problem.

Let’s keep helping each other out being seen and being safe while moving around in our city and throughout our region. See you out there soon.

I wouldn’t be as annoyed about this if it wasn’t for the article on this very web site about a driver exonerated for hitting a cyclist because there was “no way” for her to see him at noon on a bright sunny day because he was in shadow for a fraction of a second as he approached the intersection she left-crossed him.

Jeff Owen – TriMet Active Transportation Planner Hey, everyone. Our intention with the Be Seen Be Safe campaign is to celebrate the idea that all road users need to look out for each other. So when we looked at reinvigorating the campaign this year we embraced a more positive approach and purposefully tried to avoid victim-blaming.This year’s ads showing people who walk and bike don’t imply that you’ll get run over unless you dress like a traffic cone. We’re encouraging people to dress bright and/or use a light, but we’re very intentionally not saying “…or else.”We recognize that people who bike, walk, and roll — many of whom are TriMet riders — are vulnerable road users (and most of us count ourselves among them). That’s why we tried to show that if you want to take the precaution of being seen when you’re out and it’s dark, you can wear normal looking clothes with reflective accents — they don’t have to look crazy, they don’t have to be inconvenient and they don’t have to all be blaze orange. (Not that there’s anything wrong with blaze orange.)And it’s worth noting that we do have ads on buses targeted at drivers, reminding them that they need to pay attention behind the wheel. We know very well that distracted driving is a huge problem.Let’s keep helping each other out being seen and being safe while moving around in our city and throughout our region. See you out there soon.Recommended 7

Just curious, what is the transit rate of trimet employees excluding drivers getting to their route start?